from the obnoxiousness dept

In a move that is clearly driven more to intimidate Glenn Greenwald than anything else, his partner, David Miranda, was detained for nine hours at Heathrow airport, which he was flying through on his way home to Rio de Janeiro from Berlin. On top of that, all of his electronics -- his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles -- were seized and not returned. This was nothing but basic government thuggery and intimidation. There is simply no credible reason to detain Miranda other than to "send a message" to Greenwald as punishment for doing his job and exposing government abuse. The law under which he was detained, Schedule 7, is extremely controversial already, but it appears that the UK officials were clearly abusing it.

As Jerome Taylor notes, Schedule 7 makes clear that the "power to stop, question and detain" applies solely for the purpose of "if they fall within section 40(1)(b)," which you can look at here:

40. Terrorist: interpretation.

(1) In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—

(a) has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

(2)The reference in subsection (1)(b) to a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1.

In short, the only reason you're supposed to be able to detain someone is to determine if they're involved in committing, preparing or instigating "acts of terrorism." Clearly, that's ridiculous when it comes to even Glenn Greenwald, let alone his partner. The law is already ridiculous enough in that it allows officials to detain anyone, even without suspicion, solely for the purpose of questioning them to see if they fall under this section (i.e., having something to do with terrorism). Under the law, they have nine hours to do this questioning, and then they need to release or arrest the detainee. In this case, they held Miranda for all nine hours. This is not common. As the Guardian points out, the government's own stats show that 97% of people detained under this law are released in less than an hour. Only one person out of every 2000 are kept for more than six hours. Yet, suddenly, they had to hold Miranda for all nine hours and then take all of his electronics?

this shows the measure of the UK government. i would also hazard a guess that this was requested/agreed to be done via the USG! Cameron appears to be to Obama as Blaire was to Bush, a shit scared lap dog! it also shows the way governments are going today. no one is safe and to prove the point, anyone/everyone that does nothing wrong but what the governments dont like is being used as an excuse to do similar to the above. the world is very quickly turning from one that looked after and protected people to one that is totally paranoid, not about being attacked but about finding out that there was something, even the minutest thing that wasn't known about someone! does this remind people of situations that have happened before? look at the road that led the world down and what the results were. i hope some sense comes into play before we are forced to retread that same road!! and all because a few powerful, extremely wealthy people are scared of their own shadows!!

The revelations and abuses about and by our government lately have been nothing but pure greed, evil, and power-hungry.

The root of the problem has so deeply been etched into the government than nothing short of total, violent revolution could topple it. The powers that be a big headed, egotistical, patronizing assholes who have gone full on mommy-state, and at the same time, only seek to line their own damn pockets with gold.

Unfortunately though, the revolution has taken too long.

And with it, a lot of hope about turning the US into a great nation.

They have too much power now.

Power given to them by their citizens because they weren't constantly vigilant.

At this point, the only thing I'm hoping for is for more exposure to their crimes against humanity, and for the public to humble them enough for them to realise the way they're destroying lives, families, and nations.

Re:

Of course, I know this PARTICULAR story is about the UK. I'm speaking in general terms. But the problem extends further than the US as well. Especially with their blatant bullying of everyone else, pushing them around and throwing their weight over them to do their bidding, "Or else".

Re:

Also, I should note, I'm not from the US, but I'm damn well sure it effects me too. (I'm posting this because I accidentally typed "Our" in that post-- A shame there isn't an edit function, but I can see why an edit function could sometimes be counter productive.)

I'm just 'shocked' that the NYT's is reporting that there was a flash drive from Snowden in the effects.

So they used a 'terrorism' law to detain someone, deny them rights to legal assistance, the right to remain silent, held this person as long as possible for reasons so secret no one can be told why... except the NYT.

Shall we prosecute the the lackeys who told NYT's about things seized in a terrorism investigation?

They had no choice.

I did some serious investigation on this incident and determined that the authorities had no choice. You see, they discovered an Austin Powers movie and thought it was a terrorist training video from the supreme evil lord Dr Evil. So they needed to find how bad the next attack would be. You understand don't you. I mean come on, if you were in their shoes you would have done the same after you pooped your pants out of terror. I Salute The Authorities You Braved Their Lives.

Re: Re: Sad part is some approve

Re: They had no choice.

Well, they have to locate the evil volcanic lair somehow now don't they, maybe they have found it at last.

Rumor has it they have found details of a new terrorist plot code named The Alan Parsons Project.

Several preparations for assault have been attempted in the past, preparations A through G resulted in failure. But once the evil lair is finally located, things will be different. Preparations for its' assault will be referred to as Preparation H. It's a really good plan, on the whole Preparation H feels good.

Re:

It's more likely that he simply had a bottle of water, and you know how dangerous those can be. Thank god the UK stopped this mad man in his tracks before he could execute his evil plan of thirst quenching.

The UK Press

It's not like any of them would engage in underhanded activities, spying, hacking or any other questionable conduct !!!

Why would ANYONE ever want to investigate them, or question their 'stories' and their embellishments.

This person that was detained is also a little bit more than this reporters gay BF ! Why was that not mentioned here ?

At first I wondered who this Greenwald person was, but then I remembered that he is somehow distantly connected to Snowden and NSA.

Can we get even further away from the facts of Snowden's leaks, lets distract the public with this trivia. After all there appears to be NO STORY about the leaked info to talk about.. And you need page hits somehow.

Re:

Psychological warfare: Unadulterated intimidation.

If they can keep other journalists from doing what Greenwald did, they have achieved their goal. By making it public that they go after your friends and family if you publish secret US files, the chilling effect is much more massive than just harrassing Glenn Greenwald.

It is incredibly mean and would be considered under mafia-related crimes, if anyone else did it.

Send It Air Freight

A solid reminder for everyone. All your electronics, send them air freight parcel post before you get on the plane.
That way they are far, far less likely to get stolen at inspection points, whether completely illegally, partially legally or legally.
Want to make sure it arrives, upload the data to your ISP, want to protect your privacy encrypt it prior to uploading it to your ISP.

Re: Proof

Re:

According to the NY Times article, that is exactly what it was. He was apparently carrying encrypted thumb drives from Greenwald.

"Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said."

I'm not sure what the point of taking it was. Unless the NSA just wants to know what he has on them!

Re: Re:

I just hope that journalists here in the US, like those working for the Times, realize how serious this is, and what this means to them, their friends and their families. Freedom of the press is just one more freedom that has now been taken away.

Re:

It's easy for you to give up hope that the US can be great. You don't live here. I do, and I believe that we can't give up, no matter what. The question isn't what are others doing, it's what can you do? What are people willing to do? I dare say quite a few are willing to spill blood for their country, not their governmental regime.

Re: Proof

Laws, paws. Without significant transparency in culture and procedure, laws are just a nuisance you can get around by being creative. The culture you create by creating too many laws are 1. People lose respect for them. 2. Laws become the biggest hurdle for innovation! 3. Corruption in the administration of the laws, particularly pertaining to conflicting laws without legal precedence.

Liberal has to have a limit. Sure Cameron is adopting paleo-conservative social values to law and starting the only process towards less laws by leaving EU. But just removing government will make corporate interests much more important. Not in capturing laws as today, but in getting their own parallel societies rolling.

Own security? extremely common already. Own kindergartens? do exist. Own Schools? Not sure if they exist yet, but I know it is getting close. Own health insurance? Duh. Own Universities? 1000 times yes, specializing people to own R&D department already happens! Own sewage treatment, potable water facilities, roads, electricity production, heat production etc.? Most of it is already happening to some extend.

As soon as you get there, too big to fail is not about companies, but governments...

Hopefully, he used some kind of secure wiping system before going through British customs. That would prevent any forensics from being able to get anything. I would never take laptops through US or British Customs without first doing some kind of secure wipe on them, so, that if the items are seized, they will not get anything.

And this surprises anyone how?!

Why does this abuse continue to surprise or shock anyone?

Lawmakers are lazy, power-hungry idiots who rush legislation without even MOMENTARILY considering how it might be abused. Their language is so broad you could detain a poodle for terrorism because it might pee on electronics and bring down plane.

I consider most lawmakers and police as terrorists already and there is really nothing there to change my mind.

Their "let us make you slaves to save you" philosophy doesn't fly with me.

Insurance claim

So I find myself wondering, in a case like this when you have had your electronic kit taken and you go to the insurance agency they want to to file a police report for stolen equipment. What would happen if you went into your local police station and made your report? Would they take it seriously and start an investigation? Quietly fill out a form and file it? Or kick you out as a miscreant?

I am sure they were listening very closely to Glenn. It's a long ways beyond suspicious that not Glenn but David is the one bringing info. Someone knew well ahead of time and was waiting to spring this little trap to see what they could get.

If there was ever a doubt of corruption it is staring you in the face. I can not help but wonder just how deeply the US is involved in wanting to see this happen in an effort to control the leaks and what is being released.

Three insightful comments from elsewhere

Three comments from elsewhere that I think deserve wider notice:

A):

“Whether they detained a spouse or a journalist, they applied an anti-terrorism statute to cover someone who's only been accused of illegally publishing classified information. Just because the government doesn't like what you did doesn't mean they get to hit you with whatever law happens to be lying around at the moment. Why not just arrest him for murder, or tax fraud, or jaywalking? Sure, he didn't do any of those things either, but his husband pissed off the executive branch so apparently it's open season.” (metafilter, Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish)

B):

“More to the point, although David was released, his entire digital library was confiscated – including his laptop and phone. So any journalist passing through London’s Heathrow has now been warned: do not take any documents with you. Britain is now a police state when it comes to journalists, just like Russia is. In this respect, I can say this to David Cameron. Thank you for clearing the air on these matters of surveillance. You have now demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that these anti-terror provisions are capable of rank abuse. Unless some other facts emerge, there is really no difference in kind between you and Vladimir Putin. You have used police powers granted for anti-terrorism and deployed them to target and intimidate journalists deemed enemies of the state.” (Andrew Sullivan, http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/18/cameron-proves-greenwald-right/ )

C):

“I have two guesses about what is going on. (1) The documents were not provided by Snowden, but are instead works-in-progress that Greenwald and Poitras are collaborating on. They are following a security protocol stipulating that files from air-gapped computers are only transmitted from Point A to Point B on physical media (e.g., encrypted thumb drives). (2) Sending Miranda was intended to establish some kind of precedent that would help Greenwald to travel freely. Greenwald correctly believed that it would be politically untenable for the UK to arrest and charge Miranda for traveling across the border with encrypted documents. Now, if Greenwald crosses the border with encrypted documents, Miranda has set a valuable precedent. I think the first possibility is more likely than the second. However, it is possible that both guesses are correct, and it is possible that both guesses are wrong. posted by compartment (Metafilter)

Re: The UK Press

I notice that you have made each sentence in your post its own paragraph. This practice is generally discouraged, as it tends to give the reader the impression of a disordered mind strewing unrelated thoughts haphazardly in the reader's path like detritus falling out the back of a garbage truck.

Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere

A): He wasn't arrested. He was detained within the limits of the law.

B): If you are known to be a smuggler to illegal items, or to be involved with people who do, then don't be shocked to get stopped at the border. "journalist" is not a special pass word that lets you ignore the law.

C): No matter what the documents are, see B. It would be similar to a known drug trafficker showing up at the airport with a locked box that cannot be easily opened, and expecting to just be able to walk it onto the plane without question. This "journalist" made his own bed, he gets to sleep in it now.

D): Another period of time with Techdirt censoring my posts by delaying them until they are not longer relevant. Mike, do you want me to take this more public?

Re:

Under Toni Blare, Iraqi defectors under Sadam Hussein told terrible things about how the Iraqi government was run and how Iraqi's were treated by their leaders. He diplomatically asked the US Governtment to create a ruse or excuse to get defectors out of Iraq so that members of MI5 wouldn't blow their cover.

Under Mr. Cameron...anything the color orange under his porn filter is blocked and it seems to be an attempt to pander to stereotypical subtypes of conservatives from the liberal politician point of view.

Re: Re:

Adding to that, it seems that bevause of this pandering towards individual groups may be the worst possible leadership scenario one could make. This type of pandering shows a severe lack of empathy towards humanity.

Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere

which law they applied is not the issue

The fact that they used this particular terrorism law to "justify" Miranda's detention is a red herring.

The fact is that they were going to stop him and take away his electronics in any case. Pulling some regulation or other out of a hat to apply as a reason for nosy parkers who ask is simply a necessary annoyance to the authorities.

If this law had not given them the convenient allowance to detain him and take his stuff, they would have found another. I'm sure some copyright law would have been the next choice.

Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere

Re: Re:

Austerity is one of the obnoxious umbrella terms not unlike 'intellectual property' that lumps a handful of disparate concepts together under one roof leading to them increasingly being confused for one another. In this case what you mean is just plain old tax hikes and yes, they are a bitch.

Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere

A): This was not within the limits of the law. The law is explicit in its purpose and this doesn't fit which you would know if you RTFA.

B): A 'known smuggler?' What has he been convicted of smuggling? What law was being ignored *by David* exactly? Be specific. Even if you assume Greenwald broke the law (he didn't) what's that got to do with David?

C): David and Glenn are different people. David was detained. Gleen is the journalist and no not a "journalist" a journalist which you would know if you RTFA.

D): Spam filtering is not 'censorship' and what are you on about with 'not longer relevant?' Even if you posted this minutes after the comment you RE to that doesn't fly, the timestamps are less than an hour apart.

Re: Re: Re:

This type of pandering shows a severe lack of empathy towards humanity

A lack of empathy is necessary to enter the knife in the back world of politics. This goes double if you want to lead a party, considering the number of knives left in various backs while climbing the greasy pole to the top.

"I will be more aggressive in my reporting from now,” he told reporters in Portuguese at Rio de Janeiro’s airport
[...]
Greenwald told reporters he has many more documents to report on, including ones about the UK. He said he thinks British authorities would come to regret their actions.

They took his *game consoles*?

Re: Re: You omitted worst part of this "law": no right to remain silent.

Actually in this case I believe blue is right, or at the very least I have also heard that as part of the 'anti-terrorism' efforts laws have been introduced that means refusing to 'cooperate' with police is a chargeable offense.

Re: Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere

A): if you went past RTFA and actually went to look for yourself, the law of the UK allows for detention at customs for up to this period of time without any real need for justification beyond not being comfortable with the traveller or thinking there may be an issue.

B): You don't have to be convicted of something to be a known smuggler - or to have a direct relationship with someone who has apparently transported state secrets before. This is Glenn's boyfriend, and would be no different from detaining the wife or girlfriend of a admitted narco trafficker to assure that she wasn't carrying anything illegal.

C): See B above. Duh, of course they are two different people, but they are a couple and no, gay men don't get a free pass because their relationship is non-traditional. Again, see B above.

D): it's not a spam filter, it's an idea filter. I don't spam. I never have posted a link on Techdirt (outside of those to answer inane "link needed" troll posts). It's the Techdirt staff deciding they didn't want to have opposing opinions on their site that were reasonable and detailed. Every post (including this one) will go into moderation before being posted. That is a simple way to censor my posts or to make my comments less relevant. They have been quicker today to approve posts, but in the past couple of months it has taken days for posts to appear, which means the story is already 3 or 4 pages back and no longer gets any responses.

The more I point out that this is an issue, the faster the posts appear. You can puzzle that one out for me, the Techdirt staff has been very closed mouthed about their attempts to muzzle dissenting voices.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere

"A): This was not within the limits of the law. The law is explicit in its purpose and this doesn't fit which you would know if you RTFA."

The Article is based on a tweet and still somehow misses a line. Section (1)(a) that Mike ignored includes references to sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, of the act. Did anyone read them?
They run to nearly 3000 words and cover an awful lot.

Here.....
11
Membership.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.
(2)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove—
(a)
that the organisation was not proscribed on the last (or only) occasion on which he became a member or began to profess to be a member, and
(b)
that he has not taken part in the activities of the organisation at any time while it was proscribed.
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
(4)
In subsection (2) “proscribed” means proscribed for the purposes of any of the following—
(a)
this Act;
(b)
the M1Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996;
(c)
the M2Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991;
(d)
the M3Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989;
(e)
the M4Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984;
(f)
the M5Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978;
(g)
the M6Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976;
(h)
the M7Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974;
(i)
the M8Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973.

12
Support.
(1)
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and
(b)
the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property (within the meaning of section 15).
(2)
A person commits an offence if he arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is—
(a)
to support a proscribed organisation,
(b)
to further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or
(c)
to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.
(3)
A person commits an offence if he addresses a meeting and the purpose of his address is to encourage support for a proscribed organisation or to further its activities.
(4)
Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2)(c) in respect of a private meeting it is a defence for him to prove that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the address mentioned in subsection (2)(c) would support a proscribed organisation or further its activities.
(5)
In subsections (2) to (4)—
(a)
“meeting” means a meeting of three or more persons, whether or not the public are admitted, and
(b)
a meeting is private if the public are not admitted.
(6)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

15
Fund-raising.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he—
(a)
invites another to provide money or other property, and
(b)
intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
(2)
A person commits an offence if he—
(a)
receives money or other property, and
(b)
intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
(3)
A person commits an offence if he—
(a)
provides money or other property, and
(b)
knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
(4)
In this section a reference to the provision of money or other property is a reference to its being given, lent or otherwise made available, whether or not for consideration.

16
Use and possession.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he uses money or other property for the purposes of terrorism.
(2)
A person commits an offence if he—
(a)
possesses money or other property, and
(b)
intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.

17
Funding arrangements.
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another, and
(b)
he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

18
Money laundering.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement which facilitates the retention or control by or on behalf of another person of terrorist property—
(a)
by concealment,
(b)
by removal from the jurisdiction,
(c)
by transfer to nominees, or
(d)
in any other way.
(2)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the arrangement related to terrorist property

54
Weapons training.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he provides instruction or training in the making or use of—
(a)
firearms,
[F1(aa)
radioactive material or weapons designed or adapted for the discharge of any radioactive material,]
(b)
explosives, or
(c)
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
(2)
A person commits an offence if he receives instruction or training in the making or use of—
(a)
firearms,
[F1(aa)
radioactive material or weapons designed or adapted for the discharge of any radioactive material,]
(b)
explosives, or
(c)
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
(3)
A person commits an offence if he invites another to receive instruction or training and the receipt—
(a)
would constitute an offence under subsection (2), or
(b)
would constitute an offence under subsection (2) but for the fact that it is to take place outside the United Kingdom.
(4)
For the purpose of subsections (1) and (3)—
(a)
a reference to the provision of instruction includes a reference to making it available either generally or to one or more specific persons, and
(b)
an invitation to receive instruction or training may be either general or addressed to one or more specific persons.
(5)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in relation to instruction or training to prove that his action or involvement was wholly for a purpose other than assisting, preparing for or participating in terrorism.
(6)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

56
Directing terrorist organisation.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he directs, at any level, the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism.
(2)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

57
Possession for terrorist purposes.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
(2)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
(3)
In proceedings for an offence under this section, if it is proved that an article—
(a)
was on any premises at the same time as the accused, or
(b)
was on premises of which the accused was the occupier or which he habitually used otherwise than as a member of the public,
the court may assume that the accused possessed the article, unless he proves that he did not know of its presence on the premises or that he had no control over it.
(4)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F115 years]F1 , to a fine or to both, or
(b)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

58
Collection of information.
(1)
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)
he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
(2)
In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.
(3)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.
(4)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

[F158A
Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc
(1)
A person commits an offence who—
(a)
elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i)
a member of Her Majesty's forces,
(ii)
a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii)
a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)
publishes or communicates any such information.
(2)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b)
on summary conviction—
(i)
in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(ii)
in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
(4)
In this section “the intelligence services” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).
(5)
Schedule 8A to this Act contains supplementary provisions relating to the offence under this section.]

59
England and Wales.
(1)
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he incites another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)
the act would, if committed in England and Wales, constitute one of the offences listed in subsection (2).
(2)
Those offences are—
(a)
murder,
(b)
an offence under section 18 of the Offences against the M1Person Act 1861 (wounding with intent),
(c)
an offence under section 23 or 24 of that Act (poison),
(d)
an offence under section 28 or 29 of that Act (explosions), and
(e)
an offence under section 1(2) of the M2Criminal Damage Act 1971 (endangering life by damaging property).
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to any penalty to which he would be liable on conviction of the offence listed in subsection (2) which corresponds to the act which he incites.
(4)
For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether or not the person incited is in the United Kingdom at the time of the incitement.
(5)
Nothing in this section imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown.

60
Northern Ireland.
(1)
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he incites another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)
the act would, if committed in Northern Ireland, constitute one of the offences listed in subsection (2).
(2)
Those offences are—
(a)
murder,
(b)
an offence under section 18 of the Offences against the M1Person Act 1861 (wounding with intent),
(c)
an offence under section 23 or 24 of that Act (poison),
(d)
an offence under section 28 or 29 of that Act (explosions), and
(e)
an offence under Article 3(2) of the M2Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (endangering life by damaging property).
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to any penalty to which he would be liable on conviction of the offence listed in subsection (2) which corresponds to the act which he incites.
(4)
For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether or not the person incited is in the United Kingdom at the time of the incitement.
(5)
Nothing in this section imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown

61
Scotland.
(1)
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he incites another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)
the act would, if committed in Scotland, constitute one of the offences listed in subsection (2).
(2)
Those offences are—
(a)
murder,
(b)
assault to severe injury, and
(c)
reckless conduct which causes actual injury.
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to any penalty to which he would be liable on conviction of the offence listed in subsection (2) which corresponds to the act which he incites.
(4)
For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether or not the person incited is in the United Kingdom at the time of the incitement.
(5)
Nothing in this section imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown.

62
Terrorist bombing: jurisdiction.
(1)
If—
(a)
a person does anything outside the United Kingdom as an act of terrorism or for the purposes of terrorism, and
(b)
his action would have constituted the commission of one of the offences listed in subsection (2) if it had been done in the United Kingdom,
he shall be guilty of the offence.
(2)
The offences referred to in subsection (1)(b) are—
(a)
an offence under section 2, 3 or 5 of the M1Explosive Substances Act 1883 (causing explosions, &c.),
(b)
an offence under section 1 of the M2Biological Weapons Act 1974 (biological weapons), and
(c)
an offence under section 2 of the M3Chemical Weapons Act 1996 (chemical weapons).

63
Terrorist finance: jurisdiction.
(1)
If—
(a)
a person does anything outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)
his action would have constituted the commission of an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 if it had been done in the United Kingdom,
he shall be guilty of the offence.
(2)
For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), section 18(1)(b) shall be read as if for “the jurisdiction” there were substituted “ a jurisdiction ”.

A non-journalist carrying (possibly) encrypted drives over the border isn't really outside the law is it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere

I don't spam. I never have posted a link on Techdirt

That's a non-sequitor. Spam does not have to include links to be spam, and that lack of links is not proof that the comment is actually ham.

This is not about you personally, but I have noticed that the commenters who proclaim that they are being censored to suppress their points are the ones that routinely engage in abusive, off-topic, and spam. I have yet to see any evidence that any comments are being "censored" merely because they dissent from something.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

So they used a 'terrorism' law to detain someone, deny them rights to legal assistance, the right to remain silent,

Sad but true fact; In the UK one no longer has the right to remain silent. Some time ago the standard caution was amended to include the language "you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court" or something like that, meaning it is acceptable to legally interpret not speaking as an admission of guilt. I think we're trying to beat the US to the "Who can have less freedom than China without anyone revolting" trophy...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere

Come on, I didn't even have to read much to get to this:

"58
Collection of information.
(1)
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)
he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind."

Right.....

Re: They had no choice.

I believe that we should be able to laugh at anything and I do not mean to criticise you for making fun of this situation. I just want to say that I personally find it incredibly difficult to laugh at this. I grew up in an authoritarian regime and it is my impression that people from countries with no experience with authoritarian government mostly do not realize how really really bad and sad news this is.

Not in my name

I emailed my MP about this today. His reply came within 15 minutes. Canned reply obviously being sent to anyone who expresses concern:

Thank you for your email. I do wish to ensure that the UK upholds democratic values and champions freedom.

Before reaching a conclusion on the detention of Mr Miranda at Heathrow I wish to hear the police explanation for their actions. As I understand it from press accounts, this was not a matter authorised by Ministers, but an operational matter for the police themselves. I assume they believe they had the relevant powers and had reason to take this action.

The Home Office have said: “If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.”

As an MP I need more information before I can come to a conclusion on the use of existing powers in this way. I gather from what has been said so far that Mr Miranda was stopped to be asked about material he was carrying with him. Parliament should be reviewing the anti terrorism legislation soon, and this case may well be a part of that consideration, as we may anyway wish to modify the law in the direction of giving more safeguards to individuals when asked to help the police with their enquiries.